Ijtihad, Rethinking Islam (11 Oct 2016 NewAgeIslam.Com)

If Islam Means Peace, Why Is Much Of Its Theology Soaked In Hatred, Humiliation, Offensive War?

By Sultan Shahin, New Age Islam

October 10, 2016

Fifteen years after 9/11, the scourge of
violent Islamist extremism has become even more complex and deadly. The
alacrity with which 30,000 Muslims from around the world joined the so-called
Islamic State’s war against humanity has puzzled many. How could a peaceful,
pluralistic religion be subverted so easily to create inhuman monsters?

Among many factors, social, economic,
political, psychological, the one common feature is a brainwashing of
vulnerable people on the basis of a supremacist, xenophobic, intolerant,
exclusivist and totalitarian Jihadi theology. This is a blatant misuse of
Islam, a spiritual path to salvation, that 1.6 billion Muslims believe, teaches
peace, pluralism, co-existence and good neighbourliness.

But
there has to be a reason why jihadi ideology has gained acceptance so quickly;
why fatwas issued by reputed moderate scholars prove so ineffective? How are
Jihadis able to create a 100 percent certainty in the minds of some Muslims
that violence against innocent people, including Muslims, whom they consider infidel,
will please God and lead them to heaven?

Image: thecommentator.com

Clearly we Muslims need to rethink some basic
features of our theology. Success of jihadism lies in the fact that, at its
core, the jihadi theology is not very different from the consensus theology of
all other schools of Islamic thought. For instance, jihadists are able to
misuse the intolerant, xenophobic, war-time verses of the holy Quran, as
Muslims believe that all verses, regardless of the context, are of universal
applicability. Indeed, the Islamic theology of consensus, taught in all madrasas,
says that Quran is uncreated, meaning that it is just an aspect of God; and so,
divine like God Himself.

The corollary is that no verse of the Quran
can be questioned in terms of its universality and applicability. Indeed, that
any Muslim who tries to do so is committing blasphemy and deserves no less than
death. Quran on earth is said to be just a copy of the one lying safe in a
divine vault in Heaven called Lauh-e-Mahfooz.

This is completely irrational. Suppose
Meccan elite had not responded to Islam’s message of equality with violence and
persecution, leading to Prophet Mohammad fleeing to Madina. There would have
been no battles in Prophet’s lifetime and no war-time verses would have been
required. How can these verses then acquire universal applicability and eternal
value?

Not only that. There is also a
near-consensus in Islamic theology around the so-called Doctrine of Abrogation
whereby all peaceful, pluralistic Meccan verses, at least 124, are considered
abrogated by the later confrontational Medinan verses. This is most damaging
for Islam and useful for jihadism.

How do Islamic theologians reconcile the
uncreatedness of Quran, its total, unquestionable divinity, with the Doctrine
of Abrogation is beyond a rational person’s understanding. This is a belief
with hardly any basis in Quran. It evolved hundreds of years after the demise
of the Prophet.

The
same is true of the divinity and universal applicability attached to Hadith,
the so-called sayings of the Prophet, and Sharia laws. Narrations of Hadith
were recorded decades and centuries after the Prophet passed away. Almost the
last verse of the Quran (5:3) says that God has now completed the religion of
Islam. How can we write books centuries after that and give them the status of
revealed literature? Yet, all ulema are agreed that Hadith is akin to
revelation. This is clearly the height of irrationality.

Similarly Sharia was first codified 120 years
after the demise of the Prophet, based on some verses of the Quran and Arab
practices of that era. This has been changing from country to country and age
to age. How can we Muslims be told, as
we are by a multitude of scholars, that it is a Muslim’s prime religious duty
to see that this Sharia is established in the world?

Wherever a Muslim turns, from al-Ghazali,
Ibn-e-Taimiyya, Abdul Wahhab, Sheikh Sarhindi, Shah Waliullah to Syed Qutb and
Maulana Maududi, he or she gets the same Islam-supremacist message.

Let
us see what some of these learned ulema of yore, most revered by all schools of
thought, tell us:

Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111): Considered the greatest of all Sufi theologians, and by many as
next only to Prophet Mohammad in his understanding of Islam:

“… one must go on
jihad at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims]
when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may
set fire to them and/or drown them… One must destroy their useless books.
Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide... Christians and Jews must
pay... on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the
official takes hold of his beard and hits on the protuberant bone beneath his
ear... they are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church
bells... their houses may not be higher than a Muslim’s, no matter how low that
is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only
if the saddle is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They
have to wear an identifying patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in
the baths ... dhimmis must hold their
tongue...” (Kitab Al-Wagiz FI Figh Madhad Al-Imam Al-Safi’i pp. 186, 190,
199-203)

Imam Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328): Most revered Hanbali jurist and scholar among Wahhabi-Salafi
Muslims whose influence has recently grown immensely with the propagation of
his creed by the Saudi monarchy:

“Since lawful
warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's
entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those
who stand in the way of this aim must be fought... As for the People of the
Book and the Zoroastrians, they are to be fought until they become Muslims or
pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled. With regard to the
others, the jurists differ as to the lawfulness of taking tribute from them.
Most of them regard it as unlawful...”
(Excerpted from Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam
(Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener, 1996), pp. 44-54).

Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): Indian Islamic scholar, Hanafi jurist, considered Mujaddid
alf-e-Saani, the renewer of Islam of the second millennium:

“...Cow-sacrifice
in India is the noblest of Islamic practices.”

“Kufr and Islam
are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense
of the other and co-existence between these two contradictory faiths is
unthinkable.

"The honour
of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One, who respects kafirs,
dishonours the Muslims.”

"The real
purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that,
on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in
grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling".

"Whenever a
Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.”

(Excerpted from Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi,
Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries (Agra, Lucknow: Agra University, Balkrishna Book Co., 1965),
pp.247-50; and Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His
Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity (Montreal, Quebec:
McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971), pp. 73-74.)

“It is the duty of
the prophet to establish the domination of Islam over all other religions and
not leave anybody outside its domination whether they accept it voluntarily or
after humiliation. Thus the people will be divided into three categories. Lowly
kafir (unbelievers), have to be tasked with lowly labour works like harvesting,
threshing, carrying of loads, for which animals are used. The messenger of God
also imposes a law of suppression and humiliation on the kafirs and imposes
jizya on them in order to dominate and humiliate them…. He does not treat them
equal to Muslims in the matters of Qisas (Retaliation), Diyat (blood money),
marriage and government administration so that these restrictions should
ultimately force them to embrace Islam.” (Hujjatullahu al-Balighah, volume – 1,
Chapter- 69, Page No 289)

“Even if the
Muslims abstain from shirk (polytheism) and are muwahhid (believer in oneness
of God), their faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in
their action and speech against non-Muslims (which for him actually includes
all non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims). (Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah
4/291).

“Islam wishes to destroy all states and
governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology
and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it.
The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and
programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer
of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the
establishment of an ideological Islamic State. …

"Islam
requires the earth — not just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the
entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of
Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces
which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all
these forces is ‘Jihad'. .... The objective of the Islamic ‘jihad’ is to
eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an
Islamic system of state rule.” (Jihad fil Islam).

Maulana
Abdul Aleem Islahi, a Hyderabad-based scholar, justifies indiscriminate
violence in his fatwa on the concept of power in Islam. Let me quote a few
lines from the writings of this maulana who runs a girls’ madrasa in Hyderabad
and is known to have been an inspiration behind Indian Mujahedin:

“Let it be known that, according to Islamic
jurisprudence, fighting the infidels (kuffar) in their countries is a duty
(farz-e-kifayah) according to the consensus of ulema …

“… I can say with
full conviction that qital (killing, violence, armed struggle) to uphold the
kalimah (declaration of faith) has neither been called atrocity or
transgression nor has it been prohibited. Rather, qital has not only been
ordained for the purpose of upholding the kalimah but also stressed and
encouraged in the Book (Quran) and the Sunnah (Hadith). Muslims have indeed
been encouraged and motivated to engage in qital and they have been given good
tidings of rewards for this.”

“It is the duty (of Muslims) to struggle for
the domination of Islam over false religions and subdue and subjugate
ahl-e-kufr-o-shirk (infidels and polytheists) in the same way as it is the duty
of the Muslims to proselytise and invite people to Islam. The responsibility to
testify to the Truth and pronounce the Deen God has entrusted with the Muslims
cannot be fulfilled merely by preaching and proselytising. If it were so there
would be no need for the battles that were fought.

“Jihad has been made obligatory to make the
Deen (religion) dominate and to stop the centres of evil. Keeping in view the
importance of this task, the significance of jihad in the name of God has been
stressed in the Quran and Hadith. That’s why clear ordainments have been
revealed to Muslims about fighting all the kuffar (infidels): “Unite and fight
the polytheists (mushriks) just as they put up a united front against you”
(Surah Tauba: 9:36)”.

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (Born 1925), otherwise
a promoter of peace and pluralism, says the following:

"Efforts on the part of prophets over a
period of thousands of years had proved that any struggle which was confined to
intellectual or missionary field was not sufficient to extricate man from the
grip of this superstition (shirk, kufr). (So) it was God’s decree that he
(Prophet Mohammad) be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi (eradicator). He was
entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that
superstitious beliefs (shirk, kufr) were based on falsehood, but also of
resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for
all time".

[From Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s book “Islam –
Creator of the Modern World,” re- printed in 2003].

It is ironic that even an indefatigable
promoter of peace and pluralism among Muslims has to concede on the basis of
commonly accepted Islamic jurisprudence that the Prophet’s job was to eradicate
unbelief from the world, even using military means. And if this is so, what
would stop Bin Ladens and Baghdadis of this world claiming that they are simply
carrying forward the Prophet’s unfinished mission?

The message from all these sermons is
clear. Islam must dominate the world and it is the duty of every Muslim to help
the process. Wherever a Muslim turns to he gets the same Islam-supremacist
message. The latest among the most authoritative books on Islamic theology is a
45-volume comprehensive Encyclopaedia of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). It was
prepared by scholars from all schools of thought, engaged by Ministry of Awqaf
& Islamic Affairs, Kuwait, over a period of half a century. Its Urdu
translation was released in Delhi by Vice-president Hamid Ansari on 23 October
2009.

This most influential book of Islamic
jurisprudence has a 23,000-word chapter on jihad. We moderate Muslims and Sufis
keep talking ad nauseum about struggle against one’s own nafs (lower self,
negative ego) being the real and greater jihad and qital (warfare) being rather
insignificant, lesser jihad. But except one sentence in the beginning, the
entire chapter talks entirely about the issues related with combating and
killing enemies, i.e. infidels,
polytheists or apostates, starting with the stark declaration: “Jihad means to
fight against the enemy.” There is no mention of real or greater jihad.

Then Ibn-e-Taimiyya is quoted to say: “… So
jihad is wajib (incumbent) as much as one’s capacity”. Then comes the final,
definitive definition: “Terminologically, jihad means to fight against a
non-zimmi unbeliever (kafir) after he rejects the call towards Islam, in order
to establish or raise high the words of Allah.” (Translated from original
Arabic)

It is not difficult for an intelligent,
educated Muslim to discover our hypocrisy. Clearly what is censured by us
moderates as radical Islamist theology is not substantially different from the
current Islamic theology accepted through a consensus by ulema of all schools
of thought.

Late Osama bin Laden or his ideological
mentor Abdu’llāh Yūsuf ‘Azzām, now called father of global jihad, and his
present-day successor Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not invent a new theology. Their
use of consensual theology is what lies behind their great success in
attracting thousands of Muslim youth in such a short while. They will continue
to attract more and more youths until we mainstream Muslims realise our
hypocrisy and change course.

What are the ingredients of this
consensus theology that is leading to radicalisation of our educated youth? A
few examples:

1. Following a literal reading of some
allegorical verses in Quran, far too many Muslims now regard God as an
implacable, anthropomorphic figure permanently at war with those who do not
believe in His uniqueness. This is a negation of the Sufi or Vedantic concept
of God as universal consciousness or universal intelligence radiating His grace
from every atom in the universe. Unfortunately, Sufi madrasas themselves have
abandoned, at least in the Indian sub-continent, the concept of wahdatul wajud
(unity of being) for fear that this would be considered too close to the
Vedantic and thus Hindu concept of God.

Instead they teach Sheikh Sirhindi’s
wahdatul shuhood (Apparentism, unity of appearances) in the name of wahdatul
wajud. Sheikh Sirhindi had invented this concept to counter the growing
influence of Sufi masters like Mohiyiddin Ibn-e-Arabi and Mansour al-Hallaj
during the reign of Emperor Akbar.

2.
Radical ideologues quote militant, xenophobic verses of Quran to support
offensive jihad. We moderates from Sufi stream of thought counter that by
saying: look at the context. These verses came during war and had to inevitably
order fighting, killings, offer rewards for martyrs and show intolerance
towards the manifest enemy. It’s not unusual in wars to make binary arguments.

Thus
the Muslim-Kafir binary inevitably emerged during wars. After all, most of the
war-time verses of Quran revealed in Medina, first permitting and then guiding
Muslims in the course of various wars were a response to the evolving
situation. But we do not take the argument of these war-time verses being
contextual in nature to its logical conclusion, which is, that these verses
have now become obsolete; they are no longer applicable to us today when that
context does not exist.

3.
Not only that we do not call contextual verses of Quran obsolete, but we also
agree with the radicals that Quran is an uncreated attribute of God, with all
its verses, universally and eternally applicable to Muslims, without reference
to context. Every madrasa teaches that Quran is uncreated, divine, direct
speech of God, as if God were an anthropomorphic being. This totally defeats
our earlier argument that when dealing with Quranic exhortations, we should
look at the context. What context?

If
Quran is an uncreated attribute of God, immutable, eternal, merely a copy of
the original Quran lying in the ‘Heavenly Vault’ (Lauh-e-Mahfouz), then where
is the question of context? This makes it possible for militant ideologues to
tell our youth that even the militant, xenophobic, intolerant exhortations of
Quran that were revealed in the context of war, must be followed and
implemented, as there is no controversy about their applicability today in any
school of thought.

4.
There is consensus in Islamic theology that Hadith, the so-called
sayings of Prophet Mohammad, are akin to revelation. These were collected up to
300 years after the demise of the Prophet. Rational Muslims doubt their
credibility and authenticity, but even ulema opposed to ISIS, cannot bring
themselves to question the Hadith-based millenarian thesis that is the primary
cause of ISIS’ great success in comparison to al-Qaeda which did not stress
millenarianism.

As a
couple of allegorical verses of Quran and predictions attributed to the Prophet
have been interpreted to mean that the world is about to end, and Islam is
about to be victorious following the end-time war being waged by ISIS, then
what is the point of working for corporates run by infidels? Why not join the
battle and become a martyr or ghazi just before the world ends? So goes the
argument.

One
of the permanent bestsellers in Delhi’s Urdu Bazaar is a booklet called
“Qeyamat ki peshingoiyan” (End-time Predictions). I imagine a similar booklet
selling on streets of Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Istanbul, wherever. Why should
ISIS not make good use of this belief, when it has the unquestioning support of
theologians of all schools of thought, including self-proclaimed moderates, who
call Hadith akin to revelation?

Ahadith are also used to justify the killing
of innocent civilians in a war, although there are repeated and clear
instructions in the Quran against that. But the moment you say Hadith is akin
to revelation, you are nullifying the impact of your Quranically justified
claim that in Islam killing of one innocent person amounts to killing of
humanity.

5.
Nearly all Muslims consider Sharia as divine and immutable, even though
it was first codified on the basis of some Quranic verses and pre-Islamic Arab
Bedouin customs 120 years after the demise of the Prophet and completion of the
religion of Islam as declared by God in Quran (5:3).

The
result is that even Muslims living in non-Muslim majority multicultural Europe
demand Sharia-compliant laws. No wonder that those who want to practice what
they believe in would want to migrate to the so-called Islamic State, sometimes
even with their families. Radicalised youth cannot be blamed for feeling that
the moderate Muslims, in India, for instance, are hypocrites. They want to use
their purported belief in the divinity of Sharia only for male-supremacist
privileges like instant divorce and multiple marriages, whereas the radicals
migrating to the so-called Islamic State are willing to accept all the rigours
of Sharia’s criminal justice system, namely, cutting off hands for theft,
lashes and stoning for adultery and murder, etc.

6.
There is consensus in Islamic theology that helping establish and
supporting a caliphate is the religious duty of Muslims, even though there is
absolutely no such direction in the Quran. But those who believe in the Hadith
being akin to revelation are unable to dispute ISIS’ claim to legitimacy on the
basis of this Hadith: “Hazrat Huzaifa narrated that the Messenger of Allah
said: “Prophethood will remain among you as long as Allah wills. Then Caliphate
(Khilafah) on the lines of Prophethood shall commence, and remain as long as
Allah wills. Then corrupt/erosive monarchy would take place, and it will remain
as long as Allah wills. After that, despotic kingship would emerge, and it will
remain as long as Allah wills. Then, the Caliphate (Khilafah) shall come once
again based on the precept of Prophethood." (Musnad Ahmed inb Hanbali).

7.
Hijrat (migration) to the land of Islamic Sharia from Darul Harb where
Sharia is not enforced is a religious duty for Muslims. This may appear
grotesque at a time when millions of Muslims are marching to the so-called
European ‘Darul Harb’ almost barefoot in a desperate effort to escape from
so-called Darul Islam of Khalifa al-Baghdadi. The ‘Darul Islam’ of Saudi Arabia
has refused to give refuge to a single soul, while the European ‘Darul Harb’ is
accommodating millions of Muslims. But the ulema will not allow any part of
their theology to be questioned.

8.
Theologians of all school believe that some early verses of Quran have
been abrogated and replaced by better and more appropriate later verses. This
consensual Doctrine of Abrogation is used by radical ideologues to claim all
124 foundational, constitutive, Meccan verses of peace, pluralism, co-existence
with other religious communities, compassion, kindness to neighbours, etc. have
been abrogated and replaced by later Medinan verses of war, xenophobia and
intolerance. As long as Sufi theologians do not contest this Doctrine of Abrogation,
their quoting verses from Meccan Quran has no meaning.

9.
There is consensus among theologians of all schools of thought that
there is no freedom of religion for Muslims in Islam. Apostasy (irtidad or
riddah) has to be punished by death. The only dispute is whether the apostate
should be given the opportunity to seek forgiveness and revert to his earlier
position. With this core aspect of theology, how can Muslims confront terrorist
ideologues who order death for vast numbers of Muslims on ground of their
having turned apostate? In their eyes all those Muslims who are not with ISIS
and other such groups are apostates, particularly all Shia, Ahmadis, Yezidis,
etc. How can we prevent radicalisation of our youth unless we confront this
theology?

10.
The problem is there is no consensus among Muslims as to who is a Muslim?
Justice Munir of the Commission of enquiry set up in Pakistan following
anti-Ahmadia riots in 1954 reported that no two ulema agreed on the definition
of a Muslim. Ideally, Quran should be our guide, according to which even Hazrat
Moosa or Moses, who surrendered to God, much before the advent of Prophet
Mohammad, was also a Muslim (Quran 10.90).

Allah informs us of Muslims who have converted
but ‘faith has not yet entered their hearts’ (Quran 49:14). And yet, Allah does
not prescribe any punishment for them, nor are they turned out of the fold of
Islam. This means that anyone who claims to believe in or surrender to God is a
Muslim. The least Muslims can do is to accept irja, the position of the murjias
(postponers), who said let us postpone judgement in matters of faith for the
Day of Judgement. Let us allow God to judge people on matters of faith. When we
humans do not know what lies in someone’s heart, who are we to punish someone for
what he believes in or not? A very rational position, but Muslims will need to
embrace rationality or Quran first.

11.
The same is true of blasphemy. Consensual Islamic theology prescribes death for
the blasphemer, even on the flimsiest of accusations. Many Muslim countries
have anti-blasphemy laws, though the one that misuses them most is Pakistan.
Unfortunately, Sufi-minded Muslims are in the forefront of those who advocate
killing for blasphemy and some are even among the killers for blasphemy. How can
we fight ISIS ideology, if our own ideology is the same?

Clearly Islamic theology will have to be
rethought, and not just to defeat jihadism, but also to deal with many other
pressing issues including human rights of women, children, homosexuals, religious
minorities, atheists, etc.

(Sultan Shahin is founding editor
of a progressive Islamic website NewAgeIslam.com. This article is based on his
address to the UNHRC on September 26, 2016)

TOTAL COMMENTS:- &nbsp 192

All Arabs / imitator of Arab culture- outward appearanceis a Muslim.

By dr.anburaj - 4/22/2017 6:42:08 AM

Understand-Islam.com Over 100,000 pages expressing concerns about the ideology of Islam as imperfect, hate filled, male dominated, and erroneous with regard to historical facts about Christ, the cross and the resurrection. By Tom Balderston - 4/19/2017 11:07:05 AM

Hats Off,

Your supposed right to carry on a hate war against Islam on a progressive Islamic website is not the same as your real right to breathe the same air that others breathe or your real right to expound on your apostatic doctrines on apostatic websites. Do enjoy your real rights!

By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/7/2017 1:11:17 PM

i thank mr. ghulam mohiyuddin for allowing me to breath the same air as he does.

i am also grateful to him for allowing me to share his planet and for allowing me to look at the same sky as he looks at.

By hats off! - 4/7/2017 4:11:59 AM

Hats Off,

You should feel free to do your dawah for atheism on any atheistic website but carrying out a war of hate against Islam on a progressive Islamic website is simply churlish and disruptive behavior. Such behavior would be unacceptable on any Hindu, Christian or Jewish website.

By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/6/2017 11:18:35 PM

why cannot people carry on their dawah to muslims when muslims demand this right everywhere they go?

but no country in the OIC allows preaching of any non-muslim religions.

this is what is being asserted for this site as well from a "moderate" and "tolerant" muslim here.

no surprises here. islamic exceptionalism is real, and a threat to world peace.

By hats off! - 4/6/2017 7:09:06 PM

Naseer, If you want to improve your company or institution, first you should know where does it stand in the world. What others speak about it. You have to entertain criticism, lest you cannot take it to another level. It is same with any religion. By Royalj - 4/5/2017 9:42:33 PM

Roylaj, take a leaf out of Rabbi Allen Maller when speaking about another faith especially on the website of the other faith. Your attempts to criticise Islam, the Quran and Muslims and trying to put across Christianity and the Christians as superior, are pathetic attempts to sell Christianity on this website.What we need are people like Rabbi Allen Maller who can shame the bigots among the Muslims with their excellent understanding of Islam and the Quran. What we certainly do not need are bigots from other faiths and Islamophobes talking down to us on Islam. Such hostiles will be met with an appropriate response. By Naseer Ahmed - 4/4/2017 11:53:20 PM

Thanks Naseer. For me, you have travelled from 21st century to 13th century to find injustices. It is great. Inquisition is an interrogation at a special tribunal to punish the culprits. At that time there was plenty of mob violence concerning heresy just as we find that Pakistanis lynching the blasphemers, the judges and the lawyers. In order to suppress heresy and mob violence the special tribunal was established by the Pope. There might have been excessive punishment as you claim. You may know the famous quote “THE SPIRIT INDEED IS WILLING BUT THE FLESH IS WEAK” (Mathew 26:41). We too eagerly start to do great things but trample at a woman and fall in the race of life. The Spanish inquisition was established by Catholic monarchs Ferdinand II and Isabella I to purify and unify Spain after the 800 years of siege by the Islamic forces. Once you have said in this forum that the DARK AGES OF EUROPE was caused by the Islamic forces controlling the Mediterranean Sea and the international trade routes of the West.Hope your great mind will forgive these people who had come out of the 800 years siege, and knowing that they are not Holy Prophet Mohammad or the second great prophet. At least you will appreciate that Pope John Paul visited Jerusalem and sought forgiveness for the injustices done to the Jews. By Royalj - 4/4/2017 7:34:55 PM

The wisest voices form the three faiths do agree with each other. The shallow windbags make their living by playing up the differences.

By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/4/2017 12:00:31 PM

the very fact that the three flavors of the abrahamic system cannot agree with each other (together and individually) suggests that all the three of them are perhaps mistaken.

you can see here on this forum the doctrinal, fundamental and irreconcilable differences between two of them.

if two monotheisms out of three abrahamic systems agree with one another other, most probably they disprove each other - severally and together.

By hats off! - 4/4/2017 8:52:58 AM

Where does the ecclesiastical tribunal for the suppression of heresy which became notorious for unspeakable bestiality and torture established by Pope Gregory IX c. 1232 fit into the vertical/horizontal relationship framework? In 1542 the papal Inquisition was revived to combat Protestantism, eventually becoming an organ of papal government. If this is what was being done by the Pope in the name of the Son of Mary, on fellow Christians, what the rest of the Christians did to their fellow men such as Jews or the indigenous populations in conquered territory is hardly surprising. Now we have a member of the same community drenched in hypocrisy trying to preach to the Muslims on this website!

By Naseer Ahmed - 4/4/2017 3:24:08 AM

The mainstream non-Muslims suspect that in Islam there is no such thing as right and wrong or truth and falsehood; only that which is commanded and that which is forbidden. The word truth is often used in this forum in a loose or restricted sense of the word; but to many the meaning of truth is “FULLY INTEGRATED HONESTY”. A person must be honest and pure in his words, deeds and thoughts as well. For instance a Paedophile priest may deliver a good sermon or write an excellent article but he is not a man of truth. Pope excommunicates such priests from the church. Truth is also defined as “TOTAL PERSPECTIVE”. If our father or child dies suddenly, we get a perspective on life; but ‘total perspective’ is much more than that.Malaysia ex-prime minister Mohammad Mahathir once said “We Muslims have to follow the Christian West in every department of our life; whether it is philosophy, literature, science, technology, economy, democracy, sports, music etc.”(Not exact words). The reason is, for the last 1500 years the whole continent of Europe was under the influence of Christianity; which is built on two pillars (1) Love your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind – a vertical relationship with God. (2) Love your neighbour as yourself – a horizontal relationship with man. (Mathew 22:36-39). It symbolises the cross.On building a horizontal relationship with man – we say “I am sorry I don’t have a pen”. If our tongue slips and said a bad word, we say “I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings” and keep talking. While we are talking to a person and see a friend, we say “Excuse me” and leave him and join with the friend. All these hundreds of things we say and do, are not to hurt the feelings of our fellow men in our life journey. This good and inclusive relationship with the fellow human beings propels the man to a greater height.On the other hand the Islamic concept of Allah and heaven is not understandable. A Muslim husband climbs over his wife and twist her head, do honour killing, and BELIEVES he can meet Allah, face to face in heaven, who is holiest of the holies. According to Son of Mary, if we look down at a person with supremacism and call him a kafir or fool, immediately we lose the citizenship of heaven. He said “Anyone who says “you fool” will be in danger of the fire of hell”(Mathew 5:22)Same thing goes for the evil thoughts. “If anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:28). He is the only spiritual leader who is very harsh with men. Many who had sex with an in-law run away in shame.A man of truth will say Taqya is a sin, Kafir is a sinful word, Tripple talaq is a sin, Halala is a sin. Is it not a puzzling thing for a non-Muslim to know that 6.7 million Pakistanis are addicted to drugs (Heroine, Marijuana, amphetamine etc) but not to alcohol?. Because alcohol is forbidden but not drugs in the Islamic scripture. Sultan is correct. The Muslim scholars should rethink of the basic features of Islamic Theology. By Royalj - 4/4/2017 12:19:10 AM

@Ibrahim YM

“I am not willing to sacrifice my being to
a god that can’t keep it straight in a book”

“If my god cannot keep it straight in his
book, then that god is in doubt as well”

I think I am also in your boat. “Why Allah,
who is infallible, with all His power allowed the Books of Moosa, Dawood and
Isa to be corrupted”? After all it was Allah who inspired these prophets to produce
these books. If these books are corrupted how Jews and Christians who followed
these ‘corrupted’ holy books and were able to produce more than 800 Nobel Prize
winners out of 830 or so.? How they were able to invent electricity, nursing
industry (Florence Nightingale) antibiotics, CT/MRI scan and so on and not to
mention all the electronic items we use today? How by believing in corrupted
books, 85% of good works of this world are being done by these people (millions
of NGOs and 700,000 nuns), who obviously turned Allah’s world a better place to
live in?

“Quran is the direct speech of Allah to
humankind”

By saying that Quran is the verbatim or
direct speech of Allah, or it is uncreated and its Xerox copy is in heaven, there
is a real danger in such a claim. Forget that Quran is not in chronological
order or even grouped together by related subject, if, repeat, if there is a
single error in the Quran, then the whole Quran can be a fake one, for Allah
cannot make a single error. Please don’t ask me to point out the glaring errors
in the Quran. I am not a scholar.

“The Ayats urge us to fight those who have
fought us ….those who have driven us out”

Have you forgotten the history? Did the
Syrians, Persians, Egyptians, North Africans, Spanish and Subsequently Indians
drive the Muslims out? It was the other way around. It was the Islamic forces
who had driven them out. Every action has a reaction. Consequently, the West came out of the Dark
Ages and the 800 years of siege mentality, and colonised hundreds of countries
as a counter measure of Islamic conquests.

Anyhow I enjoyed the great article by
Sultan and your comment. I enjoy the difference of opinions.

When we realize the depth of Allah’s
mercy, we too can readily show mercy to His creatures; mercy to gays, mercy to blasphemers,
mercy to prostitutes, mercy to apostates, mercy to our fellow pilgrims Atheists,
Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, Hindus, etc..

We have travelled a long way. Many countries
have stopped capital punishments, giving the culprits a chance to regret their
sins. Allah says “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Rather am
I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?”

We have change the wordings. We don’t say “under
developed countries” but “developing countries” We don’t say “mentally retarded
person” but “intellectually disabled person” so as not to hurt anyone feelings.

Regards,

“We cannot claim to love Allah and pray
five times while we abuse and harm His creatures”

By Royalj - 3/11/2017 10:08:47 PM

I am God. Dear muslims, who asked you to call me by name Allah? I am beyond your senses and imagination and yet you say I spoke to moses and many so called prophets and angels? Who said I created jannah, angels, jinn, adam and satan? it is your imagination!! I am beyond space and time and you say I am in jannah or I am sitting in a throne over jannah? You wrote in quran 67:16 to 67:17. Thus you define me in your own way but if non muslims calls me by different names, imagine forms of me and try to worship me in their ways you attack them!! who gave you the right to ridicule other religions and harm others?Lastly I don't condemn anyone for eternal damnation for their finite crimes they do. Do not threaten others with hell fire. By God - 2/28/2017 3:14:05 AM